DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc., 531 P.2d 932.

32 citing documents.

  • Danko v. McCormick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Danko v. McCormick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Credit Bureau, Inc., (For example, the statute of limitation may be tolled if the defendant’s conduct is “directed to obtaining the delay of which he actively seeks to take advantage by pleading the statute.”).
  • Rainer v. Swift Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Rainer v. Swift Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Credit Bureau, Inc., , ("The statute of limitations is a statute of repose, enacted as a matter of public policy to fix a limit within which an action must be brought, or the obligation be presumed to have been paid, and is intended to run against those who are neglectful of their rights, and who fail to use
  • Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
  • Logerquist v. Danforth 932 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
    See, e.g., Cooney, 160 Ariz. at 141 , 770 P.2d at 1187 (App.1989); Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc.
  • Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger 871 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Cooney v. Phoenix Newspapers, 160 Ariz. at 141, 770 P.2d at 1187 ; Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc.
  • Cooney v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 770 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
  • Cooney v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 770 P.2d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
    Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc.
  • London v. Green Acres Trust 765 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • London v. Green Acres Trust 765 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    Sound policy reasons support statutes of limitation; they are “a necessary protection against the assertion of unmeritorious claims long after they are capable of being defended.” Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc.
  • Anson v. American Motors Corp. 747 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • Anson v. American Motors Corp. 747 P.2d 581 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    some trick or contrivance intended to exclude suspicion and prevent inquiry”); Coronado Dev’t , , 537 (App.1984) (requiring “a positive act tending to conceal the cause of action from the plaintiff”); Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc., , (noting “the defendant’s conduct must be directed to obtaining the delay of which he actively seeks to take advantage by pleading the statute”).
  • Mister Donut of America, Inc. v. Harris 723 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Mister Donut of America, Inc. v. Harris 723 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    of limitations commenced to run.” Therefore, even if the evidence would have justified a finding that Mister Donut’s continued efforts and assurances concerning the establishment of an Arizona International Multifoods distributorship were “directed to obtaining the delay of which [Mister Donut] actively seeks to take advantage by pleading the statute,” see Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc., , there could have been no finding of tolling in this case.
  • Hall v. Romero 685 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Hall v. Romero 685 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • Brown v. Superior Court in & for Maricopa Cy. 670 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1983
  • Brown v. Superior Court in & for Maricopa Cy. 670 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1983
    Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc., , *332
  • Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Amfac Distribution Corp. v. Miller 673 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc.
  • Lim v. Superior Court in and for Pima County 616 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
  • Lim v. Superior Court in and for Pima County 616 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
    As Division One of this court stated in Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc., , to toll a Statute of Limitations, a defendant must cause delay, then seek to take advantage of it by pleading the statute, citing Zimmerer v. General Electric Co., 126 F.Supp.
  • Rogers v. Fenton 564 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • Rogers v. Fenton 564 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc.
  • State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Arnold 548 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
  • State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Arnold 548 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
    Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc., , Tucson Medical Center, Inc. v. Rowles, 21 Ariz.App.
  • Landgraff v. Wagner 546 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • Landgraff v. Wagner 546 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    This court has recently followed the rule in Jackson v. American Credit Bureau, Inc., , (no constitutional issue raised).